The Reasonable Leap into Light: A Barebones Secular Argument for the Gospel - Daniel C. Peterson

[@javierpardo2247]

Daniel peterson! Thank for all your work, I have been having testimonies problems for about a year, thanks to many of your videos I have become to recuperate my testimony, now Im getting more and more happy, now Im coming back to church after been sad, thank you thank you 😁

[@WellandJoyceArtist]

This man was fundamental in my conversion to the gospel, so I’m so grateful. I’d love to meet him one day ☺️

[@hollyodii5969]

Daniel C. Peterson is a personal hero of mine. His pov is like a tank! Solid and strong! I enjoy his courage and his education.

[@lloydmelling3150]

Southwestern

[@davidlemon7543]

I just love to listen to Dan.

[@mjwells100]

I learn so much from Dr. Peterson! I try to see as many videos of his presentations as I can, and I am edified by every one of them! He's so interesting, and he has a sharp wit that makes it fun as well.

[@ajenks9]

Just love how he capped the whole thing off: “If that’s the kind of universe you want to live in, it’s yours.”

[@jdsew5579]

Dan has been, and still is, important in my life. A great scholar and a great defender of faith.

[@danite620]

If I am listening to Dr. Peterson when the Lord calls.me home , I'll go.happy .

[@EmanuelNeves]

Thanks for the video, my own process of developing a testimony seems to mirror somewhat the steps he mentioned. I began by discovering evidence for PSI phenomena, including near-death experiences, which opened up the possibility that there was a God. Then when I heard the claims of the Restoration, they seemed plausible to me and I was open to finding out for myself if it was true. How glad I am that I did!

[@tonyjames1953]

There are two basic tenets for acceptable scientific proof: 1) Can the process be replicated with all things being equal and produce the same result? and 2) Can anyone, given the same conditions and elements, also reach the same results? Well, if that's good enough for scientific purposes, then the very same steps can lead to a spiritual realization!

[@larrysabin2723]

We love you Dan. We just hope you can do better taking care of your health. We want you to have a long healthy life.

[@srso4660]

What's wrong with his health?

[@boopus221]

What a great talk...

[@SparkCroft21]

Thank you.

[@williamturner6192]

If I'm not mistaken in Rome it was popular to use Greek as an academic or high class thing. Could be a mistaken idea I just heard somewhere.

[@luizaraos.soteroluiz5327]

Does Fairmormon have some sort of manual for apologetics? I am from Brazil and it is very difficult to get material for apologetic here. I' ve bought the book "Of Faith and Reason", which took more than one month to arrive.

[@luizaraos.soteroluiz5327]

I would appreciate. [e-mail]

[@luizaraos.soteroluiz5327]

Fair Mormon Yep. Thank you. Gonna check it out later.

[@keeperman4]

There are a lot of "God of the gaps" arguments here.... The fine tuning argument is mute in the light of the multiverse model. Pascal's Wager is so nebulous. Which god? Which religion? Which sect?

[@markhenshaw2151]

>>The fine tuning argument is mute in the light of the multiverse model. The multiverse model is not only unprovable, but untestable. The laws of physics do not allow us to reach outside the boundaries of spacetime. Therefore it is a faith-based argument, not a science-based argument. >> Pascal's Wager is so nebulous. Which god? Which religion? Which sect? As Dr. Peterson points out, Pascal's Wager isn't intended to answer those questions. It is merely designed to make someone consider the potential consequences of atheism vs theism.

[@markhenshaw2151]

>>Pascal's Wager is so nebulous. Which god? Which religion? Which sect? As Dr. Peterson himself remarks, Pascal's Wager is not intended to answer those questions. It is intended to make people consider the potential consequences of atheism vs. theism. So it cannot fairly be discounted by posing additional questions that the wager was not designed to answer.

[@ethanf.237]

Preston T Cro Did you even listen?

[@firecloud77]

You mean moot.

[@johnperry1645]

The multiverse model is silly. Pure conjecture in the hopeless improbability that random process can create intelligence.

[@BarbaraJoanneBJ]

About three years ago I challenged this man in a comments section of something he wrote. He argued with me. I argued back. Then this 'scholar' told me if I continued arguing he'd delete my comments. Some scholar!

[@ethanf.237]

Remember, there's a difference between "arguing" and "whining". Perhaps you're not quite as clear on the distinction as Dr. Peterson is.

[@josephjohnson8212]

"whining?" really? this kind of dismissive attitude to your opponents is exactly what turned me off to church apologetics.

[@Twizzybeatzz]

Thing is, you based this off of a comment section on KZbin. Your first mistake, I'd wager. I don't mean to excuse any action of either party because I wasn't there, but perhaps next time you decide to debate and issue with a man like this, ask for his or her email? It would provide a great place to privately make your points so the other could understand. Nothing negative on you, but I think the venue for the debate could've been better.

[@davidcampbell5979]

Arguing, works every time...

[@lynnjohnson2371]

Just noticed your comment. I have read much of his writing about church. Yes he is an extraordinarily gifted scholar. I have only read threats like you described when the writer is unusually rude. You may not recognize you are rude but his response tells me you were. You can turn such an experience to your benefit.